[teolandon]

I don't see why the miraculous hypothesis gets to get away with not explaining why and how the miracle was done. Why should we reject it being a fraud just because we don't know how it was done, while accepting a miracle which we also don't know how was done?

[smeej]

I think it's pretty common (maybe even required?) not to know how a miracle was done. The whole point seems to be that it was not done by known means.

[teolandon]

That doesn't make it any more reasonable to accept as an explanation.